Meet the 'Vortex of Despair': Four Predictions for Earth's Future

[BiteTheBigOne2342]

Totally facebook - /watch?v=XvwK-3cQ6gE

[nester119]

What are you gonna do about getting around to doing anything positive when the communities are overrun with ghetto rats and their violent and irresponsible offspring? With civil white societies being pushed off the earth by immigrants from Africa and the middle east? You won't get the help you need from these types! You poor professorial folks have your heads up your ass. We are DOOMED.

[astroboirap]

@nester119 stfu nazi

[Watchdawg]

@nester119 What is actually ruining this world are people like you.

[shodashi108]

Gore 2.0 for the MIT crowd.

The root problem of our world — rampant self-interest— is not addressed. The alternative system we need to consider is one that protects ALL from the self interest of the few (or the many).

When we consider what is Best For All, we will initiate appropriate models.

[technodrgriffin]

@shodashi108 Definitely, but but human nature would be hard to change after seeing the world the same way for thousands of years.

[ssnakeydnb]

applying pascal's gambit doesn't really imply the generation of an accurate world model, rather he lobbied for 10 minutes for the green businesses, I don't regard this as "scientific", rather as an advertorial in which he proposed that an "eco age" in which green business will flourish will be good for the average idiots

[Valstein0]

This speaker didn't really have any solid supportive information, or consistent reasoning. I would have liked to have seen exactly why his hypothesis' would have happened, rather than him just postulating that what he predicted was correct. I didn't really gain anything from this speech.

[frednoname1]

GOOD NEWS!!! This guy is completely wrong.

The guy who wrote the hockey stick theory has admitted that there has been no warming since 1995.

The whole thing was a scam.

So none of the 4 options will happen.

[oiuoiu988]

he's wrong about a lot more than that. the HDI is an absolutely terrible way to measure human development and it should be called GDI for government development index.

[deathByStupid]

Crap. all the points are obvious. complete lack of anything constructive to think about.

Its a small world after all? Cmon he puts no effort into explaining what this would actually require. That we will somehow magically arrive here.

[Largehippo]

We're in "group 2" and have already been through "group 1". These aren't 'futures' they're contemporary reality. Even when we focus on society "group 3" will always exist. The wealth gap hasn't stopped growing in recent history. And the dick just trails off into nothing when describing "Group 4"...

I'm sorry but this man has no grip on reality... or is just pitching some bull crap because he's being paid to. Either way no one should adopt his perverse ideas.

[thecamlayton]

I think we're in all of them mixed together... I don't understand how you can separate any of that and say this might happen, or that might happen. Plainly, I think this is stupid... or I don't get it.

[blackiron60]

Interesting.

[HayteStreet]

GDP is deceptive.

[dukehey2]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[greatbroad]

Well, @ around 5:30, I'm thinking to myself, "we are here." There should be one of those red arrows appear then, and say: US 2010, baby!

[VolcanicPenguin]

Something tells me we're not going towards the good one.

[2JOHNNYT]

All the Worlds a Birthday Cake

so take a piece but not 2 much

watch?v=akTM4CiKMcA

[VertNinja]

He's from the Arup group.. that explains it

[alexmigda]

The future is not fiction, it's real. Stories about the future are fiction.

[tempemonkey2323]

Listen up, this guy doesnt know what he is talking about. Here is the future.... Corporations will have forced us to consume much of the resources, we will be wa over populated, and people will spend thier time not being educated but turning the corporate wheel. Food may not be too scarce but metal, wood, oil etc will be... It will all be about keeping corporations turning...

The moral is, stop having so many kids, stop consuming so much, stop givng government power to corporations

[GeminiPrimeX]

I am not sure if we need to consume less. But we need to recycle more. Find better ways to use every resource before we go out and find a new one. That is a start anyway.

[HarpersFairy]

I can't speak for Sweden, but in the United States we need to consume less. Much, much less. Our attics, thrift shops, flea markets and garbage dumps are overflowing with half a century's worth of poorly-made junk nobody wants, but everyone seems to keep buying anyway.

Don't even get me started on energy consumption--suffice it to say that SUV sales in the U.S. are on an upward trend again.

[uziel187]

@ 3:32, Did he say world depopulation?

[icandoracingme]

He said rural depopulation.

[screwopenborders]

capitalism won't destroy us, tyrannical world government will.

[danshil]

@screwopenborders Disagreed. Tyranny will destroy personal freedoms, but capitalism will destroy lives.

[screwopenborders]

Thats not capitalism that destroys lives, thats dishonesty. You find that in Communism too if thats the route your thinking.

[oiuoiu988]

@danshil

tell us how capitalism destroys lives....

[oiuoiu988]

capitalism is better with open borders, big government is not.

[ShowtimeLakers87]

we have enough uneducated labor force in the US to sustain a reasonable amount of capitalist development. We don't need more. BTW I'm including the illegals that are already here in the US. Whats funny is the undercutting of wages and high living costs are stifling the development of new entrepreneurs do to the fact they can't raise the capital to make a new business. Also the banks are loaning money out like they used to.

[oiuoiu988]

sorry to interrupt your post-game hot tub sex but competitive labor is an essential component of economic growth(higher living standards) in a free society. minimum wage laws stifle development. did you omit the word NOT from your last sentence?

[ShowtimeLakers87]

Well thats your opinion but when Bob used to make 15 an hour but now has to settle for 8 because of an illegal workforce that works under the table it keeps money out of his pocket obviously?

Who the fuck is getting a higher living standard out of that?

Wage laws have nothing to do with it, these people that come illegaly work under the table or use fake SS numbers. Yes even Donald Trumph said they aren't loaning money out like they used to.

[oiuoiu988]

so bob being overpaid is more important than ending poverty in the world? the mexicans are getting a higher living standard out of that. wage laws cause unemployment and create the very black market for labor that you despise. i know the banks arent loaning out money like they used to, i was the one politely corrected you, remember??

[oiuoiu988]

and btw its not just my opinion, its shared by every deductive economist on the planet and 80% of positivist economists.

[ShowtimeLakers87]

why does it have to be Bob's job that gets undercut? skilled labor shouldn't be undercut. Thats how you work your way up in the world. Why Can't Jose go undercut Juan for that field job? We can get into semantics here all day if you want but at the end of the day this isn't helping capitalism. Why should we worry about mexico's standard of living? if they want a better standard of living they need to throw their corrupt government out. oh you don't need to correct me, correct yourself.

[ShowtimeLakers87]

btw the economic disparity is a problem. Why is it that its ok for the CEO to get a raise? They can skip buying a boat or two so people can live a bit better. The ultra rich don't care about anyone but themselves and their egotistical self-righteous attitude annoys the shit out of me. They get there from the good ole boys club, not from hard work.

[oiuoiu988]

the economic disparity is due to the state. its ok for a ceo to get a raise because order is emergent, and that includes social order.

[ShowtimeLakers87]

oh also if poverty was going to be ending it would already be progressing way more than it has. That doesn't happen till corrupt politicians get the hell out.

[oiuoiu988]

youre an idiot, was 87 the year you were born?

[Valstein0]

Minimum wage laws stifle development? You mean people are able to afford to buy things, so the economy grows? Or maybe you mean that the workers work harder to keep their job, so products and service grow in quality. Wait, I understand. You mean that the CEO's don't make the huge profit margins they want. Damn shame. I'm sure without minimum wage laws the private jet, mansion and yacht markets would boom. I wish you people would pull your heads out of the GOP's ass before speaking.

[oiuoiu988]

thank you for revealing your own ignorance. I believe in a free society, where corporations dont have a state to incorporate into and dont have a state to lobby for special priveleges, protections and barriers to entry that they could not otherwise achieve in a free society. minimum wage laws make it ILLEGAL to hire someone who's labor isnt worth the MW. that is why we have such a terrible labor market. you have no clue, i have nothing to do with the gop and you make yourself look ignorant.

[Valstein0]

@oiuoiu988

Maybe I jumped to conclusions when I commented. It seems maybe there are quite a few things we would agree on.

[ZankDigiTrash]

Destroy communism before it destroys us

[kaioshy]

This is pseu-intelectual moron on stage. Take a good look on what this fancy Dr. said at 1:28 "the oceans make our Oxygen in this planet". Chris Luebkeman earned a PhD in stupidity.

(The selfish bubble, carbon is a crime and vortex of despair) they are all fused in one, It's called: Capitalist free market.

Basicaly what he's trying to say with twisted words is; capitalism doesn't suit for sustentability on ecological balance.

[Mastikator]

@kaioshy The Keynesian (current) capitalist model isn't sustainable. I agree, consumption can't be at the center of the economy. We need to consume less. Maybe we could give more to the needy with what we save.

[kaioshy]

@Mastikator

Consume less or give something are bad things for the economy. Some people already do that, but these actions have repercussions and emphasizes stimulation on the "dark side of capital flow = fascism & war economics". Money must come from somewhere, if we don't participate in the "consumption game", they will push their "dark game".

One of many solutions is eradicate the corporation personhood statute, the government doesn't want this because corporatism is the government.

[Mastikator]

@kaioshy Huh?!?!? How is consuming less bad for the economy?

Explain.

[oiuoiu988]

@mastikator

perhaps on balance, most people should be more charitable with the fruit of their labor but an economy is a delicate balance of consumption and INVESTMENT. if you take some of the consumption money and INVEST it, the capital can be used to start a profitable business that INCREASES overall employment and less people need charity. so investment is the simple answer to how we can use our money to help society and bring people out of poverty.

[Mastikator]

@oiuoiu988 ...ok? Why are you telling me this?

[danshil]

@kaioshy I don't think that's what he said. The "Carbon is crime" world is pretty far-left. His point is it's too far left, too much government control. Kinda the exact opposite of a free market.

[kaioshy]

@danshil

It seems to me that you don't know how the free market system works. You know that we have been living in a free market system for the past 37 years. What you see now worldwide is private states, product of applied free market concepts. Why "Carbon is a crime" is from left ? This concept is a rotten good idea as potential capital, ready to be implemented in the global free market system. I bet someone in beijing or texas is taking profit from it. It's all about capital flow.

[Guncriminal]

Lol. "The oceans make our oxygen" was a true face-palm moment.

For some reason, he seems to think that consumption = capitalism.

[glennd7962]

This guy is so impressed with himself. His not so clever argument for forced collectivism, and rather unsubtle reductionism of what "consumerism" mean, give him away for the socialist ponce that he is. He makes his living on government projects, and surprise, he believes that governmental action is the answer for everything. Typical collectivist-utopian dreck.

[Causa10bserver]

0.017

[SomeBSUTubeName]

Global climate change is not caused by people beyond a very insignificant amount. Carbon taxes will lead to more starvation. Most of the money will go to billionaire bankers.

[doutonight]

Yeah, we should totally just continue polluting the shit out of everything, that has nooo impact on nothing

And billionaire bankers already get all the money anyway

[Zeno1999]

@SomeBSUTubeName> Pollution is being caused more by manmade chemicals than "natural disasters."

Carbon tax may not be the answer but "life style" taxes are important to make individuals responsible for their actions;eg, more cars per household means more tax paid.

In capitalism, money is a big motivator; If u r a millioniare, its easy to make another million. It's not a sin to make more money. Regulation of banks and bankers is the job of elected gov't officials- voters needs education :)

[screwopenborders]

I wouldn't want to be a greedy billionaire banker sucking up money from the people. They might wanna hide in a bunker.

[willb128]

This is ridiculous

[frednoname1]

No guesses which one he prefers. So we need to give up our freedoms and shrink our standard of living or "climate change" will get us. This whole lecture is bull shit. It is based on very dodgy science.

[oiuoiu988]

this guy's stupidity made me puke.

[oiuoiu988]

hahahahaha the HDI is a piece of crap and does not measure human development.

[gasttheplast]

I think,I'm going to be sick all that B.S !

[freesk8]

"Selfish bubble" is misnamed. It is not in our self-interest to ruin our environment. If we really focus on ourselves, we preserve the environment. Wealthy, free market nations have, on average, much more preserved wilderness than socialistic nations because richer nations can afford to set aside more wild land.

Carbon is Crime is where the UN and Obama are sending us via "cap and trade" and global carbon tax schemes.

We're heading towards ecological age via the free market.

[garith21]

uh, nice assertions, however if the free market really worked in the way you assert, since people aren't looking at environmental impact as much as they are their checkbooks, if business was really leaning in such a fashion rather than for image sake then there would be no reason to monitor it and certain businesses wouldn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to say CO2 doesn't have an effect.

[oiuoiu988]

youre a paranoid idiot, do you really think theyre spending billions on research? you lose.

[garith21]

1) again nice assertions

2) who's they? Most scientific organizations require equipment, staff, the time for research into not only the specific topics but the equipment for said research.

3) Way to avoid every single point raised and address nothing. Make a cogent and logical argument for once in your life would you?

4) In regards to businesses spending money on branches and buying politicians yes it does happen.

[oiuoiu988]

1) that didnt need its own number. no one cares if you think me making fun of you is nice or not

2) they are certain businesses, youre the one that used the word they to describe certain businesses that were spending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars. let me guarantee you there is no BUSINESS anywhere thats spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on funding research or "trying to say" something. youve sufficiently demonstrated your complete economic ignorance. congradulations!

[oiuoiu988]

3) i commented on the point i found to be the most offensive to my sensibilities, it doesnt seem like you even understood what i was saying.

4) wtf are you responding to? seriously dude, go read a book or 2.

[freesk8]

WAY more is being spent by govts to prove Anthropogenic Global Warming than is being spent by corps to counter the effort. Both of these big interests (govt and corps) are only out for their own power, and neither can be said to be operating in a free market.

The free market has extended human life span and the environment has gotten CLEANER over the last 30 years due to the free market. We can't afford pollution controls unless we generate wealth. Poor nations destroy more forestland.

[garith21]

1) The science says it independent of the government, your point is merely a red herring, I'm merely pointing out that you're asserting businesses and the free market will fix it when this clearly isn't the case.

2) I'm sure that poor US and poor China are prime examples of very well pollution controlled countries via the market.

[freesk8]

Most climate change science is funded by the govt.

How can you argue that the org that funds the research matters when corps do it, but not when politicians, who are far more corrupt, do?

China has less free market, and more pollution. The US is richer, and has much more wild lands preserved and better pollution controls.

[garith21]

That wasn't ever my argument as already stated, the companies themselves are making the investments into buying corrupt politicians and all of this other nonsense rather than into important technologies in order to get said subsidies and benefits you ream so much against. For them, they see it as proper investments so they can keep doing what they're doing. Trying to look at it as a free market purist while ignoring why it is the way it is is rather childish is it not?

[freesk8]

Politicians are corrupt because we the people have allowed them to seize too much power. Remember, power corrupts. If the politicians lacked the power to grant special subsidies, favorable regulation, and protection from startup competitors, then the ceo's would never offer the bribes in the first place. There'd be no advantage to it.

Reduce the power of Congress back to what is authorized in the const, and the bribes dry up and the corruption and money in politics are reduced.

[garith21]

1) Great, if you can get them to do that I'm all for it, but in reality I don't see that coming any time soon, do you?

2) Quoting someone's cute, but actual reasoning and data is more important than quotes.

3) Great so by that quote we determine that if cars required no gasoline and were always ready to go that everyone would be driving infinitely, Amazing reasoning.

[oiuoiu988]

@garith

1) its called freedom, stop opposing it.

2) it doesnt appear that he quoted anyone.

3) maybe the comments have just been mixed up by youtube and youre not as much of a psycho-moron as you seem to be.

[garith21]

1) This doesn't address my point at all and I don't oppose freedom or support a large government

2) I'm stating that you blurting out quotes from someone else doesn't make things fact, I also like that you don't actually address comment what so ever, resort to personal attacks and going on random tangents instead of addressing what was said. In the realm of intellectual discourse this means you've run out of any intelligible arguments.

[oiuoiu988]

1) you really love sorting your thoughts out by numbers dont you? anything government does is in opposition to freedom, otherwise it wouldnt be a government. i adressed your point by pointing out that the guy you were responding to was describing freedom and your ignorant response was "Great, if you can get them to do that I'm all for it, but in reality I don't see that coming any time soon, do you?"

thats fucking moronic.

2) youre confused, i didnt quote anyone, and i dont think he did either.

[garith21]

"The free market has extended human life span and the environment has gotten CLEANER over the last 30 years due to the free market."

Lets examine this claim with just one examples of a very old market, cars and fuel efficiency didn't improve very much till laws were passed telling companies they had to fulfill a certain standard of fuel efficiency, that requirement hasn't changed and internal combustion engine car's average mpg hasn't changed much.

[freesk8]

Fuel efficiency would have increased MORE if fuel prices reflected all social costs so that consumers were given incentives to buy fuel efficient vehicles.

Govt subsidies reduced that incentive so that incumbent politicians could win re-election. Then they had to "patch" the problem they created through mandated fuel eff. standards.

Govt creates the problem, then sells us bad solutions that violate our liberty.

Bad deal.

The market would have done a better job.

[garith21]

Did you examine the history before said fuel efficiency laws were passed? It was already pretty grim with fuel shortages everywhere, companies and society didn't particularly change unfortunately till government put a hand in it.

Also you seem to have an issue of cause and effect if you really think it happened that way, they wouldn't have had to mandate fuel efficiency standards if companies had already done it themselves and thus wouldn't have to "patch" said problem.

[freesk8]

Government is reactive. It almost never leads popular opinion because that is risky, and whenever it tries to lead in the tech sphere it just slows things down. EG high def TV. Mandating fuel efficiency doesn't work if the people don't demand it or if the tech is not available.

"Increasing CAFE standards will not decrease the amount of pollution coming from the U.S. auto fleet. That's because we regulate emissions per mile traveled, not per gallon of gasoline burned."

[freesk8]

"..automakers have an incentive to offset the costs associated with improving fuel efficiency by spending less complying with federal pollution standards with which they currently over-comply.

Those two observations explain calculations from Pennsylvania State economist Andrew Kleit showing that a 50 percent increase in CAFE standards would increase total emissions of volatile organic compounds by 2.3 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 3.8 percent, and carbon-monoxide emissions by 5 percent."

[freesk8]

"Improvements in fuel efficiency reduce the cost of driving and thus increase vehicle miles traveled. "

Cato Inst., Don't Raise CAFE Standards

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

[garith21]

btw I should point out that just because the vehicle travels more miles it does not necessarily lead to more pollution even if I assumed for the sake of argument it's correct the net pollution is still dependent upon the amount of gas burned and not the miles traveled.

Also keep in mind that deal in the earlier part of the quote as well while you're at it -_-

Dealing with the economist claims, making what assumptions? =P

[garith21]

Now, I'm not asserting "government is the answer to all our problems" but, I am pointing out your assertion that the free market has done it on it's own without any government intervention is flawed. Also you totally evaded the point that if it were in the companies best interest they'd invest in cleaner technologies with that money rather than lobbying government, funding companies to produce bad research, etc, etc.

[freesk8]

My point is just that, on average, the free market does a better job of solving product and service supply problems than does the govt. Govt should be involved in police, courts and national defense, but almost all other social problems are better solved by non-profits, individuals and corps.

Govt now subsidizes gasoline. (Mideast war is one example.) If the price had to incorporate all social costs (eg free market) then gas would be more expensive and corps would market more fuel eff. cars.

[garith21]

I should point out that a certain president is trying to erase said subsidies and invest into other sources, I however doubt said things will pass since it's not only unpopular amongst politicians it's unpopular with the average public person that thinks "my gas is going to be more expensive so I don't like it" rather than thinking about actual options.

[tbroaofbtvohfm]

Fuck that guy's voice was annoying.

[cristop5]

It's the job of the think tanks (they're all conservative for some reason - funding maybe?) to discredit environmentally sensitive solutions. They do this by linking notions of ecological sustainability to communism, socialism, anti-americanism etc.

America in particular is awash with semi-literate dupes happy to buy this line. Witness the tea party saps.

So if you want to discourage SUVs or promote energy efficiency you have to fend off charges of being a commie!

[Ruzhyo2000]

My vote as most likely for the immediate future goes to the selfish bubble, moving into the ecological age with time (but perhaps I'm just being hopeful).

[m0nkeybl1tz]

I agree. Ecological age would be perfect, but we're so far away from it now that it seems impossible. However, if we can keep ourselves alive for long enough, we can maybe achieve it. Which is why I advocate for nuclear now, solar later. Well, solar now, too.

[Thiemann79]

yo, @m0nkeybl1tz, just google the amount of nuclear used today, and the amount of uranium availabel. youll find that nuclear might have a little renecance now, but its never gonna contribute substancially to a thing like "SOLUTION" for the worlds energy-demand.

[GOPsithlord]

Ah "societal fixes"...the perils of that phrase.

[qtronman]

What is the Arup Group? Does it receive government subsidization?

[Webarton]

This is meaningless, there are heavy elements from all of these categories that are present today. Mix it all together and you have our reality now.  To me, this doesn't count as "productive" thinking at all.

[Perserus]

I think the oversimplifications are so large that the message is meaningless.

I didn't watch the whole thing, but from what I saw here, the conclusions do not even hint at using economic principles to predict outcomes.

[WarVideo]

Sociatal fixes = Statism

[RadarKat73080]

It's sooo much better to have big business run everything!

[sashex]

It always has and always will. Just change the name every ones in a while.

[RadarKat73080]

Ya gotta have hope!

[sashex]

Atheism gives me hope.

Theism gives me a 45

[RadarKat73080]

Right on!

[petrino]

dont you mean 42? the answer to everything? :P

[sashex]

No, I mean 45 as in Colt 45 the gun, not to be confused with Colt 45 the malt liquor. thou they do seem to go hand in hand ( pun intended).

[sashex]

PS The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a lot more plausible than the bible.

[garith21]

Hey and at least those aliens made themselves very apparent vs the claimed god revealing himself in the head of a chosen person or as a talking bush (to only one person)

[RadarKat73080]

I wish I had two heads. If nothing else, so I could have more intelligent conversations.

[qtronman]

WarVideo: Would you like to see me respond to this BS point by point in a video?

[WarVideo]

I didn't take you for a masochist, but sure why not? If you can, try to wear a little tie like the guy in the vid.

[WarVideo]

Maybe you should clcik on the link and watch the whole presentation before you do a video. What if at the end he surprises everyone and jumps out and says "Capitalism is the only way to go Bitches" and runs out. You never know man.

[qtronman]

Hahahahah, yeah right.

[Guncriminal]

Being British, my money is on the "carbon is crime" scenario. In certain areas of the country, you can get fined for putting your rubbish in the wrong bin; some would argue that we're there already.

It's all a big con.

[WarVideo]

Blah Blah Blah Blah, dont be selfish, blach Blah Blah save the world,blah blah blah propaganda.

[diomedes39]

I'm not sure what to take away from this.

[leafsfan9917]

@diomedes39 take it as an oppinion, its much better to look at all sides of an argument, you will realize that the oppozition is much more valid than appears at first

[WarVideo]

@diomedes39

This was not made so you could take anything away from it, it was made to take from you.

[RadarKat73080]

Take only pictures, leave only footprints.

[WarVideo]

Why stop there, why not kill yourself and leave NO footprints.

[RadarKat73080]

What have I done to recieve such a curt response?

[WarVideo]

I did not mean to attack you, It was just a more consistent application of your principle.

[RadarKat73080]

Apology accepted. I'm trying to find a way you can live and at least have a neutral impact on resources.

[dannidandannikins]

why would it be virtuous to have 'neutral impact'? whatever that means

[RadarKat73080]

Neutral impact=zero carbon. Because we wouldn't be adding to the pollution. Great if we could to "plus carbon", take pollution and make it harmless/ useful. But that may be asking too much.

[dannidandannikins]

what a stupid idea. Have you checked recently what it is that you exhale when you breathe? WarVideo was dead right. the only way for you to live by your ideals is to kill yourself. When your body has finished decomposing... then you'll be carbon neutral.

[RadarKat73080]

You honestly think my lunges are worse then a car's exhaust?

[dannidandannikins]

I don't recognize the use of carbon as bad so the question of better or worse is meaningless.

the fact is that CO2 simply is not a pollutant.

[TheElefaunt]

Well given carbon is or isn't causing global warming,

it's still something that is a limited resource it's dead plants

that where onced powered by the sun,

we still need to be more direct and get are energy directly from the sun,plus drilling takes so much waste

and expansion that leads to de-forestation which is a problem and could be the cause of global warming in mine and others opinion.

[AxiomofDiscord]

how about CO?

[garith21]

CO2 is simply a gas, a gas with properties, one of it's properties is to absorb IR radiation. The higher concentration and density of said gas the more radiation that is retained on the earth rather than it going out to space.

Stating "it's not a pollutant" doesn't change the fact that it continues to have said properties and we're the main cause for it's concentrations going up.

[RadarKat73080]

Been to Venus lately? Yeah, that's natural, but is it so farfetched that we could do likewise?

[TheElefaunt]

there is a balance to the air you breath out

and the carbon the trees breath in,

if you start pulling the carbon from the ground

and cutting down the trees by mass amounts you are at least destroying some kind of balance you must admit.

[garith21]

the amount of CO2 emissions and sequestrations that are naturally produced stay in relative balance, what we're doing is taking sequestered deposits that took the earth millions of years to sequester and burning it for energy. Keep in mind that the sun gets gradually brighter as you talk about it in the millions of years. In other words, it use to be much warmer with a dimmer sun, what do you think it'll do with a brighter sun?

[Zeno1999]

@garith21> what noone wants to talk about is how much Oxygen is available in the city cores for those breathing there.

CO2 get absorbed into oceans, soil and plants to replenish O2 in the air but its not 100%. I wonder, when we run out of O2 completely ? Is it possible to know ?

Is there some unknown intelligence built into our Solar system that keeps everything in balance- Sun spots, climate, bio-diversity etc ?

[garith21]

1) A few million years of evolution tend to help

2) what a lot seem to avoid is that O2 concentrations have dropped 3% due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

3) That's what sequestering means it's also emits approximately about as much.

4) It doesn't "stay" in balance no matter what or we wouldn't have positive feedback from small warming.

[kaioshy]

@garith21

2) "what a lot seem to avoid is that O2 concentrations have dropped 3% due to the combustion of fossil fuels."

Your statment is simply not truth.

Molecular O2 concentrations have dropped due to the increasing deforestation of natural growth areas. Photosynthesis doesn't occur at the same rate for every plants. That's one of the reasons why flora's bio-diversity is so important.

The hunger for capital is destroying our eco-balance.

[garith21]

lol sorry? but do you know how combustion reactions work? Both are indeed factors, but you also need to realize that while deforestation is bad and does have an effect we actually get most of our O2 from the oceans.

Sorry but we can't exactly burn carbon deposits that took the earth millions of years to sequester and equate that to trees we have in the forests now.

[garith21]

@kaio

1) We get much of our O2 from microorganisms that perform photosynthesis most of which occurs in the ocean.

2) Essentially burning millions of years of photosynthesis and undoing that carbon sequestration is a very significant factor. I agree that deforestation is an issue, but the "main one" I respectfully have to disagree.

[oiuoiu988]

@RadarKat73080

its called price discovery and frederich hayek found it 60 or 70 years ago, it just takes a while for some people(you) to catch on and pick up a book.